Document validation mapping system and method

ABSTRACT

Documents having a structured nature such as contracts, legislation, etc. can be graphically depicted to emphasize their logical structure. A document map may graphically show clauses of a document as nodes with the requirements of the clause as branch structures from the nodes. The requirement elements of a clause may be logically linked by a logical operator for the clause, such as AND, OR, NOT etc. Each requirement element may include a validation field that allows a user to indicate whether a requirement has been validated. Validation of the clause can be calculated based on the validation field values, typically Boolean values, and based on the logical operator. The validation map may be used to determine compliance with a document, costs of compliance, etc.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 12/702,337 filed Feb. 9, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,005,877,which in turn is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.10/486,522 filed Feb. 7, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,668,865, which inturn claims the benefit of PCT/AU02/01106 filed Aug. 14, 2002, which inturn claims the benefit of Australian Provisional Patent ApplicationPR7017 filed Aug. 14, 2001.

The present application claims the full benefit of the filing date ofeach of these applications to the fullest extent permitted by 35 U.S.C.§§119 and 120.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a system for analyzing, processing andnavigating through documents, and in particular documents of astructured nature for example legal and semi-legal documents such ascontracts, warranties, policies, legislation etc.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The nature of language means that many different words and phrases canbe used to describe a particular situation. As such, there is generallyno consistent drafting style between two different drafts people andthus it is difficult to produce a consistent and universal set ofdocument interpretation rules. In addition, many structured or formatteddocuments contain lengthy and complex clauses that make navigatingthrough the document difficult. It is an object of the invention toprovide a system and method for analyzing and interpreting documents. Itis a further object of the invention to provide a system forconstructing structured documents.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one aspect, there is provided a method for mapping a document. Adatabase is provided that stores a plurality of document elementclasses, at least one mapping symbol for each document element class anda set of document elements for each document element class. A mappingsymbol may comprise a node structure and at least one branch structureextending from the node structure. A mapping interface displays amapping area on a display of a computer system. Within an electronicdocument, at least one document element may be identified and for one ormore of the document elements identified within the electronic document,the document element is classified into a document element class, thusallowing the mapping symbol associated with the classified documentelement class to be displayed in the mapping area of the mappinginterface. A document element from the respective document element classmay be displayed in the node structure of the displayed mapping symboland a document section that is associated with the identified documentelement may be displayed in a branch structure of the displayed mappingsymbol.

The document sections may be clauses of a document and mapping rules maybe defined that determine how the clause is to be displayed, inparticular how requirements of a clause can be highlighted, displayedand logically linked by a logical operator.

In one aspect, there is provided a system for mapping a document. Thesystem includes a database that stores a plurality of document elementclasses, at least one mapping symbol for each document element class anda set of document elements for each document element class. A processoris configured to provide a mapping interface on a display. The processormay cause an electronic document to be displayed. Through the interfacea user may identify a document section within the electronic document,identify one or more of the document elements within the identifieddocument section, determine one or more document element classesassociated with the one or more identified document elements, select amapping symbol from the document element classes and display theselected mapping symbol on a mapping area of the mapping interface. Theinterface also allows the user to provide a document section from theelectronic document into branch structures of the displayed mappingsymbol.

In one aspect, there is provided a computer implemented method formapping a logically structured document. A mapping interface is providedon a display of a computer system. The mapping interface uses aplurality of logical operator classes which each represent a logicaloperator. The method also uses mapping symbols for each logical operatorclass. In the method, a logically structured document section isreceived into the mapping interface. The logically structured documentsection may comprise logical operator text indicating a logical operatorand requirement text associated with the logical operator text thatexpresses one or more requirements of the logical operator. To map thelogically structured document section, a user selection of a mappingsymbol is received and displayed on the mapping interface. The mappingsymbol indicates the logical operator of the document section. Themapping symbol also indicates the requirements of the document sectionin branch structures of the mapping symbol.

In one aspect, there is provided a computer system for allowing a userto generate a logical map of a document comprising at least onelogically structured document section. A logically structured documentsection may comprise at least one logical operator and at least onerequirement associated with the logical operator that expresses at leastone requirement of the logical operator. The computer system may utilizea database that stores a plurality of logical operator classes, eachlogical operator class representing a logical operator. The database mayalso store mapping symbols for each logical operator class. The mappingsymbols may display a node structure and at least one branch structureassociated with the node structure. A processor of the computer systemmay be configured to display a mapping interface on a display. Userselections of mapping symbols may be received through the mappinginterface and displayed on a mapping area of the mapping interface. Alogically structured document section received into the mappinginterface may be mapped by displaying an indicator of the logicaloperator of the received document section in the node structure of thedisplayed mapping symbol and displaying the requirement(s) of thedocument section in the branch structure(s) of the mapping symbol.

In one aspect, there is provided a computer system and method fordrafting a document utilizing a database that stores a plurality oflogical operator classes representing logical operators and a set ofdocument section drafting rules for each logical operator class. Thedocument section drafting rules are dependent on the logical operator ofthe respective logical element class. The database also stores at leastone mapping symbol for each logical element class and a set of documentelements for each document element class. Through a mapping interface, adocument may be created by selecting and displaying a mapping symbol ona mapping area of the mapping interface. The displayed mapping symbolcomprises a logical operator from the same class as the displayedmapping symbol in the node structure of the displayed mapping symbol.The mapping interface may receive, from a user, clauses of a documentinto the displayed mapping symbols. The computer system may apply thedocument section drafting rules of the logical element class representedby a displayed mapping symbol to generate a text document comprising adocument section comprising text of the clauses of the at least onebranch structure in association with the text representing the logicaloperator of the node structure.

In one aspect, there is provided a system and method for mappingcompliance of a logically structured document. The system and methodutilizes a compliance map that is displayed on a compliance mappinginterface of a computer system. The compliance map may comprise one ormore logically structured document sections. A logically structureddocument section may comprise at least one logical operator and at leastone requirement associated with the logical operator that expresses atleast one requirement of the logical operator. The compliance mapdisplays the document section in a mapping symbol with the logicaloperator indicated in a node structure and the requirements indicated inbranch sections. Compliance fields may be displayed with the requirementstructures. A user may indicate compliance of a requirement in thecompliance field for the requirement. The computer system and method maybe configured to determine the global compliance of a document sectionfrom a logical calculation of the compliance fields of the requirementsand dependent on the type of the logical operator.

In various embodiments, multiple document sections may be logicallyassociated allowing total compliance of a document to be calculated fromthe global compliance fields of the multiple document sections.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention will now be described, by way of non-limiting exampleonly, with reference to preferred embodiments and to the accompanyingdrawings in which:

FIG. 1 is a schematic of a database used in the present invention;

FIG. 2 shows a schematic sample of a document being converted to adocument map;

FIG. 3 is a sample screen shot of a mapping software applicationinterface;

FIG. 4 is a schematic example of a record structure;

FIG. 5 shows a document map after an initial step in a validationprocess;

FIG. 6 shows the document map of FIG. 5 after full compliance;

FIG. 7 shows the affect of a non-complying requirement in the documentmap of FIG. 5;

FIG. 8 shows a document map including evidence fields;

FIG. 9 shows how a document map can be used to plan compliance;

FIG. 10 shows a preferred method for mapping embedded requirements;

FIG. 11 shows the document map of FIG. 5 that has been translated intoChinese, as one example of a translation procedure that maintains thelogical structure of the document map;

FIG. 12 shows example characteristics of a Multiple Requirements elementclass;

FIG. 13 shows example characteristics of a Choice Of Requirementselement class;

FIG. 14 shows example characteristics of a Conditional Requirementselement class;

FIG. 15 shows example characteristics of an Exception Requirementselement class;

FIG. 16 shows example characteristics of a Preferential Requirementselement class;

FIG. 17 shows example characteristics of a Mandatory Requirementselement class and an Optional Requirements element class;

FIG. 18 shows example characteristics of a Sequential Requirementselement class;

FIG. 19 illustrates alternative methods for displaying a statementdependent on punctuation;

FIG. 20 shows validation tables for the element classes;

FIG. 21 shows a sample contract document;

FIG. 22 shows a flowchart for validating the contract document of FIG.21;

FIG. 23 shows a flowchart provided a validation action plan for thecontract document of FIG. 21; and

FIG. 24 shows examples of mapping of embedded requirements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

Many structured or formatted documents contain lengthy and complexclauses that make navigating through the document difficult. The systemof the present invention recognizes that while such documents are uniqueand contain sections drafted for the express purpose of the particulardocument, these sections are typically linked using specific and genericgrammatical constructs that are common to many documents.

The system of the present invention as depicted in FIG. 1 includes adatabase 10 containing a set of element classes 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.Each element class has a class heading and a plurality of documentelements. Each element class also has a linked set of documentformatting and mapping rules 12 a, 13 a, 14 a, 15 a, 16 a, 17 adescribed in greater detail below with reference to FIGS. 12 to 18.

The element class heading represents a grammatical function type foundin a document. The document elements for an element class include thestandard ways in which that function type may be grammatically expressedwithin a document. That is, the class represents a logical operator andthe document elements are the text strings used to express the logicaloperator. Typically the document elements are grammatical constructelements used to link “requirements” e.g. of a clause in a contract. Forexample a clause may specify:

“Statement A AND Statement B”, where “Statement A” represents a firstrequirement, “Statement B” represents a second requirement. The “AND”element is the grammatical construct element used to construct the linkbetween the first and second requirements. The “AND” element alsoidentifies the rule for satisfying the entire clause, i.e. to satisfy an“AND” clause, all requirements (Statement A, Statement B in the presentexample) must be satisfied, i.e. must be TRUE, in order for the clauseto be deemed complied with.

In FIGS. 12 to 18, element classes or operator classes are shown for thefollowing classes: multiple requirements (FIG. 12); choice ofrequirements; (FIG. 13), conditional requirements (FIG. 14) includingleading conditional requirements and trailing conditional requirements;exception requirements (FIG. 15) including leading exceptions andtrailing exceptions; preferential requirements (FIG. 16) includingcomparative preferential requirements and progressional preferentialrequirements; mandatory requirements (FIG. 17); optional requirements(FIG. 17) and sequential requirements (FIG. 18).

With specific reference to FIG. 12, it is shown that each element classhas characteristics specific to the class. One characteristic is thedocument elements 121 for the class. The document elements are thetypical words, phrases, text strings etc that can be used to express thedocument element. By way of example, the “Multiple Requirements” classincludes as document elements 121 within the class, the words andphrases or text strings “&”; “along with”; “also”; “and”; “as well as”;“covering all things”; “furthermore”; “in addition to”; “includes”;“including”; “moreover”; “plus”; “together with”; “with”. The term “AND”is the lead document element and is provided as a summary word 122.

Additional characteristics of the document class include documentsection formatting rules such as mark-up symbols 123 and color coding124 that may be used as highlighting in a text document, documentmapping layouts 125 that may be used for creating document maps, andcompliance rules 126 that can be used for compliance mapping of adocument as will be described in greater detail below. While specificreference is made to the “Multiple Requirements” class shown in FIG. 12,a person skilled in the art will readily recognize components of theother classes shown in FIGS. 13 to 18 that correspond to the componentsof the Multiple Requirements discussed above, including documentelements, summary words, mark up symbols, color coding, document mappinglayouts and compliance rules. Thus, in the interests of clarity andconciseness, no further elucidation of the other classes is considerednecessary here.

The embedded requirements are typically inserted into the requirementbox when there is a following requirement. For example, FIG. 24 shows anexample with an embedded requirement [b and c] 82 within the leadingconditional statement “If [b and c], then a” 81. In the document mapcorresponding to the statement 81, the document mapping symbol 83 forthe leading conditional class (FIG. 14) is used. The document mappingsymbol 83 includes a box 84 that represents the leading conditionalrequirement, which, in the present example is the statement [b and c]81. Since the leading conditional requirement contains an embedded “AND”clause, the document mapping symbol for the AND clause (see FIG. 12) isembedded 85 within the leading conditional requirement box 84. Alsoshown in FIG. 24 is an example of a progressional preference statement“Prefer [a and b] to c” 86 which contains the embedded statement [a andb] 87. The document map for the statement 86 uses the document mappingsymbol 88 for the progressional preference class shown in FIG. 16 withthe symbol 90 for the embedded AND statement 87 and the associatedrequirements (a, b) being displayed within the primary preference box89.

An example of analyzing a document in accordance with a preferred aspectof the invention will now be described. As a first step, an originaldocument is reviewed to identify any words and/or phrases (andassociated punctuation) that match members of the element classes. Thedocument elements identified form dividers between text blocks,typically containing the requirements for those document elements, thatallow the document to be divided into sections. In terms of producing adocument map for showing the logical structure of a document, the actualtext or expression of a requirement is unimportant.

A map of the document can then be constructed using the mapping rulesfor the element classes to which the identified document elementsbelong. A simplified example of the process is illustrated in FIG. 2 inwhich a contract 40 is processed to produce a marked-up document 46. Inproducing the marked-up document 46, the system has identified thedocument elements “or” 41, “and” 42 and “if”/“then” 43 and produced themarked-up document 46 in accordance with the mark-up symbols listed forthe “Choice Requirements” 223 (FIG. 13), “Multiple Requirements” 123(FIG. 12) and “Leading Conditional Requirements” 323 (FIG. 14) classes.

The marked-up document 46 is then converted to a document map 50. Inconstructing the map 50 the “and” element 42 is identified, as are thethree requirements headed “a)” 21, “b)” 22 and “c)” 23. An “AND” node 51is created on the map, being the symbol 123 (FIG. 12) for elements inthe “Multiple” class. Three branches extend from beneath the AND node 51to receive the respective requirements “a)” 21, “b)” 22 and “c)” 23. Thetext of “Requirement A” 26 is placed into the first branch text box 58.Within sub-clause “b)”, the element “or” 41 is identified between tworequirements, “Requirement B” and “Requirement C”. The “or” element isclassified in the “Choice of” class and is depicted on the map as an“OR” node 52, being the map symbol 223 used for “Choice of” elements(see FIG. 13). The “OR” node 52 is displayed on the second branch fromthe “AND” node 51 with the text of “Requirement B” 27 and “RequirementC” 28 being displayed in respective boxes 59, 60 branching from the “OR”node 52.

Within sub-clause “c)” 23 the “if” and “then” elements 43 a, 43 b areidentified. An IF/THEN statement has the general form “If condition thenconsequence”. In the present example, the leading conditionalrequirement “Condition A” 44 is identified between the “if” 43 a and“then” 43 b elements and the consequential requirement “Consequence A”45 follows the “then” element 43 b. The map 50 depicts the requirementof sub-clause “c)” using text box 53 on the third branch extending fromthe “AND” node 51. Text box 53 is connected to the “IF” symbol asprescribed by the leading conditional class symbol 323 depicted in FIG.14. The text of the conditional requirement “Condition A” 44 is providedin the text box 55. A “THEN” symbol 56 is connected to the “LeadingCondition” text box 55. The “THEN” symbol 56 is then connected to theConsequential condition text box 57 which receives the text of theconsequential requirement “Consequence A” 45.

The output of the document analysis system is thus a formatted documentthat allows the document to be more clearly navigated. In oneembodiment, the formatted document is a map 50 of the type illustratedin FIG. 2. In an alternative embodiment, the formatted document may bethe document 46 in substantially the same form as the original documentbut with the document elements highlighted with the appropriate colors,fonts, etc in accordance with the format rules such as the mark-upsymbols 123 and color codes 124 described above with reference to FIGS.12 to 18.

Whether or not a word within a document is identified as a documentelement can depend upon its context, that is, on any surrounding words,phrases or punctuation. For example, not every occurrence of the word“AND” within a document will necessitate a node to be created for it. Itmay only be required in cases of the following form:

Condition Statement

a) First requirement

b) Second requirement; and

c) Third requirement.

Thus the identification of an occurrence of the word “AND” as a documentelement may be conditional on it being immediately proceeded by asemicolon “;” or like divider. Example dividers 129 are shown in FIGS.14, 15, 16, and 18.

A further and more complex example of a conditional classification of anidentified element into an element class occurs with the terms “two ormore”, “three or more” and the like. Such terms will form a subset ofthe “Choice of” class (FIG. 13) as more than one but not all of therequirements pertaining to the element will need to be met for theentire requirement to be complied with. Thus, after identifying thepresence of an “or” within a document, it is necessary to analyze thesurrounding words and/or punctuation to determine the context of theelement to ascertain whether the element falls within a subset of thebroader element class.

Punctuation in the original document will play an important role indetermining the relationship between text sections and the documentelements. An example is the contract condition “(a) and (b) or (c)”which, as shown in FIGS. 19 a and 19 b, can be represented in twodifferent ways depending on how the statement is punctuated. FIG. 19 amaps the statement “A, and B or C” whereas FIG. 19 b maps the statement“A and B, or C”. Punctuation, headings and numbered sections e.g. a,b,c. . . ; i, ii, iii . . . ; can be used to correctly divide the documentinto text sections.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the system is a softwareapplication executed on a computer processor that accesses an electronicdatabase storing the element class information. The system includesapplication programs and an electronic database and/or electroniclibraries storing the element classes and rules, as shown and describedwith respect to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 12 to 18. The software application isadapted to run on a computer terminal such as a personal computer orwork station.

Initially, an original document to be analyzed and mapped is obtained inan electronic format such as in Microsoft Word™ format. A highlightedversion can be obtained by identifying within the original document thedocument elements as they appear in the document and converting thoseelements according to the highlighting, i.e. formatting rules for theelement class. Document elements within the document are identifiedusing any suitable known search algorithm, of which many are known tothe skilled addressee. Similarly, many algorithms for highlighting theidentified document elements in accordance with the appropriateformatting rules would be known to the skilled addressee. The followingis a simple search and formatting algorithm for locating the documentelement “and” and displaying the element in green, as specified by therule for “Multiple Requirements” class:

Sub CTB_Contract_HIGHLIGHTS( ) ‘ ‘ CTB_Contract HIGHLIGHTS Macro ‘ Macrorecorded 06/11/00 by Nathan McDonald ‘MULITPLE REQUIREMENTS (GREEN) Selection.Find.ClearFormatting Selection.Find.Replacement.ClearFormatting Selection.Find.Replacement.Font.ColorIndex = wdGreen  WithSelection.Find   .Text = “and”   .Replacement.Text = “and”   .Forward =True   .Wrap = wdFindContinue   .Format = True   .MatchCase = False  .MatchWholeWord = True   .MatchWildcards = False   .MatchSoundsLike =False   .MatchAllWordForms = False  End With  Selection.Find.ExecuteReplace:=wdReplaceAll

Similar algorithms can be used to identify and highlight the otherdocument elements show in FIGS. 12 to 18 using their respective colorcoding. The process is repeated for each document element stored in thedatabase. The output of the search and format procedure is a formattedversion of the original document containing the appropriate highlights.The formatted document is displayed on the graphic user interface (GUI)of the computer terminal.

The display of the formatted document includes a user selectable macrotool that allows the user to override the automatic formatting where adocument element has been inappropriately identified.

A further macro allows a user to manually highlight document elementsand the associated requirements that use a language outside of thestored document elements. The user selects the text in the document andthen selects the macro tool for a document element class. The macro toolthen applies the highlighting rules for that class to the selected text.

The formatted document is then used as the basis for creating a documentmap through a mapping interface. A sample interface of a mappingapplication is shown in FIG. 3. One preferred mapping application isbased on the Microsoft Visio™ program. The mapping application interface30 includes a menu 31 and a mapping area 32. The menu displays graphicalsymbols 33 for each of the element classes. Each symbol represents anelement class and includes a class header 35 and linked requirementboxes 36.

The interface of the computer terminal on which the application runs canbe manipulated to display the formatted document and mappingapplications simultaneously on the GUI.

The user creates the document map 37 clause by clause according to theformatted document. To commence, a user identifies a clause in theformatted document that is to be mapped. The clause will contain adocument element and one or more requirements. In the mappingapplication 30, the user selects from the menu 31 an appropriate elementclass symbol matching the document element of the clause and drags anddrops the symbol into the mapping area 32. The user then highlights andselects a clause requirement from the formatted document and places thetext of the requirement in a text box 36 of the symbol in the mappingarea. As stated previously, in terms of producing a document map, theactual text or expression of a requirement is unimportant and thus therequirement can be manipulated as a single text block.

Further requirements are placed in additional text blocks of the symbol.

The text of a symbol may be displayed within the symbol in its entiretyor alternatively, a summary label may be produced and displayed as ahyperlink with the full text of the requirement being displayed when thetext box is selected by the user.

A class symbol will have a default number of requirements. For example,“and” and “or” clauses will each have a minimum of two requirements andthus the symbol displays a default number of two text boxes. Furtherrequirement boxes can be added as necessary, for example by selecting anoption from a drop down menu available for that element class symbol.Alternatively, when the user selects a symbol from the menu, the usermay be prompted to supply the number of requirement boxes to be includedin the symbol.

To continue building the map, the user selects a further clause of theformatted document which may be an individual clause or an embeddedclause, and drags the appropriate symbol into the mapping area. The usercreates a graphical link 38 between the first and second clauses bydragging the screen cursor between the two symbols to draw the link. Theprocess of filling the requirement boxes is then repeated accordingly.

When a new symbol is added to the map, an element record is created.Referring to FIG. 4, an element record 450 will have a field for theelement class 451 and fields 452 for linking to the requirements relatedto that element. The element record will further include a validationfield 453 for each of the linked requirements and a complete validationfield. The complete validation field is governed by a rule for theelement class as will be described in greater detail below.

When a requirement is added, a requirement record is created. Theelement record becomes a parent record to each of the subordinaterequirement records. An exemplary requirement record structure is shownin FIG. 4. Each requirement record 401 will have a text field 402 thatstores the text of the requirement. Further record fields include aclause identifier 403, clause title 404, summary or label field 405,compliance box 406 and evidence field 407. The record will also containaddressing fields for linking to the parent element record andsubsequent element or requirement records, and embedded requirements.

The map is thus stored electronically as a series of linked requirementrecords and element records.

Contracts often have requirements embedded within others. A set ofbrackets may be used to highlight the embedded requirements in thehighlighted document. With reference to FIG. 10 which shows a documentmap for the phrase “A and, [b or c]”, when creating the document map,embedded requirements (i.e. [b or c]) are to be either inserted into theunique requirement box 91 as shown in FIG. 10 a or connected directly 92to the embedded structural symbol 93 as shown in FIG. 10 b.

The software application also supports an automatic navigation orvalidation process. Whilst the compliance rules would ordinarily bespecified and stored with the element class rules (as shown in FIGS. 12to 18), the compliance rules are detailed in FIG. 20.

Using the validation process, a user can navigate through a document byvalidating that particular requirements of the document have been met. Auser validates a requirement by selecting an appropriate icon on theinterface pertaining to that requirement. The software then updates thecompliance field 453 of that requirement record 451 (see FIG. 4) with acompliance status, e.g. TRUE, FALSE etc. The compliance field of theparent element record relating to that requirement is also updated. Thesystem further prompts the user to provide compliance evidence, e.g. areceipt number, link to a document or other evidence that therequirement is met. In this way, the user's own record keeping isenhanced. Validation of a requirement can be indicated on the userinterface, e.g. by shading the requirement.

In an alternative embodiment, a non-blank compliance evidence field isdeemed to indicate that evidence of compliance with the requirementexists and accordingly, a non-blank validation field triggers theupdating of the compliance field to a validated status.

Validation of an entire clause can be indicated by shading the entireclause. The element classes may store validation rules that allow theformatting of validated clauses to be performed automatically. Forexample, as shown in FIG. 20, the validation rules 211 for an “AND”clause 212 will specify that all requirements must be validated, thevalidation rules 213 for an “OR” clause 213 will specify that any one ofthe requirements must be validated whilst the validation rules 215 foran “IF/THEN” clause 216 specify that if the leading conditionrequirement is validated, then the consequence condition must also bevalidated. To determine whether the entire clause can be validated, thesoftware checks the compliance fields of the element record for acompliance status. If the necessary requirement records have a compliedstatus in the compliance field, the entire clause is validated and thecomplete compliance field of the element record is updated with avalidated status. A validated status in the complete compliance fieldtriggers the display of the entire clause to be highlighted accordingly.

FIG. 21 provides an example of a document 220 which a user wishes tonavigate. For the purposes of providing a realistic example, the exampledocument is an extract from Australian Standard AS/NZS 1554.1 which istitled “Welding of structural steel”. Thus the document of FIG. 21relates to a welding procedure. However, the specific content of thedocument is provided only as an example of how the text portions of thedocument may be shifted and located into a document map and subsequentlyvalidated for compliance. The specific content of the document, i.e.aspects of the welding procedure, are not considered to form a part ofthe invention and many other examples of logically structured documentsmay be considered. FIGS. 5 and 6 show a document map for the clauses ofthe document 220 of FIG. 21 that is presented to the user on the systeminterface. The document map shows the logical structure of the document220 with the text of the requirements, e.g. 4.2(a), 4.2(b) etc. placedin text boxes. FIG. 22 provides a flowchart 100 that illustrates thesteps in navigating the document. In the present example, the user isattempting to determine whether clause 4.2 is satisfied 150. Starting atthe first branch 155 of the “Multiple” or AND node 151 in FIG. 5, and aswritten at step 101 in FIG. 22, the user has verified that the crossreferenced clause 4.4 has been complied with and thus 4.3(a) has beencomplied with. The user indicates compliance with the requirement byplacement of a tick 152 or similar indicator in the compliance field. Atstep 102, the user has validated that cross referenced clause 4.5 153has been complied with and thus the map shows that clause 4.3(b) alsoindicates compliance by tick 154. Continuing the validation procedure,at step 103, investigation reveals that the requirements of clause4.3(c) 156 have been met and the user indicates this through theinterface (FIG. 6) by tick 158. Clause 4.3(d) 157 contains a leadingconditional requirement (WHERE/THEN) 159 cross referenced to clause4.6.2. The user tests clause 4.6.2 (step 104) to see if the conditionalrequirement 161 is met. If the conditional requirement 161 is not met,then 4.3(d) will be automatically satisfied, otherwise, if theconditional requirement 161 is met, then the consequential requirement162 will also have to be satisfied. In the present example, as indicatedat step 104, investigation into Clause 4.6.2 reveals that a macro testis required, i.e. the CONDITION requirement 161 of the WHERE statementis true, which is indicated by compliance tick 163. Because the wherecondition 161 is true, evaluation of the THEN CONSEQUENCE requirement162 is necessary. At step 105, the investigation validates that there isdocumentary evidence of a macro test in accordance with Clause 4.6.5 andso the compliance field of consequence 162 is updated with compliancetick 164. Therefore, subclause 4.3(d) complies (step 106) and thecompliance map (FIG. 6) is updated with compliance tick 164.

Because section 4.3 166 identifies a “Multiple requirement embedded in atrailing conditional requirement” element (IF[AND]) all requirementswithin the trailing consequence requirement 170 of section 4.3 will needto be complied with before clause 4.3 166 is complied with. Step 107shows that Clause 4.3 complies because the embedded requirements in thetrailing consequence have been complied with. That is, Clause 4.3(a)155, Clause 4.3(b) 153, Clause 4.3(c) 156 and Clause 4.3(d) 157 havebeen complied with and so the complete compliance field of Clause 4.3166 self-validates with compliance tick 165. As indicated at step 108,compliance of Clause 4.3 166 validates compliance of clause 4.2(a) 167,shown by compliance tick 168. The sections of clause 4.2 150 are linkedby “Choice of” element and thus only one requirement need be validatedas complied. Therefore, validation of clause 4.2(a) 167 automaticallyvalidates clause 4.2 150 (step 109) as shown by compliance tick 169.

In FIG. 7, the effect of a non-conforming clause 4.3(a) 155, indicatedby cross 171 on clause 4.2(a) is shown. Because Clause 4.3 166 has fourAND requirements, non-compliance of a single clause, e.g. clause 4.3(a)155 causes non-compliance of the entire clause 4.3, as shown by cross172. In turn, clause 4.2(a) 167 is non-compliant, as shown by cross 173in the compliance field of clause 4.2(a) 167. Therefore, in order forclause 4.2 to be compliant, at least one of clauses 4.2(b), (c), (d), or(e) must be complied with.

Each unique requirement box on the validation interface may be dividedwith one portion detailing the requirement and another portion detailingcompliance evidence. FIG. 8 shows an extension of the document map ofFIG. 7 in which requirement box 153 includes a portion 181 for providingcompliance evidence. Compliance evidence has been provided forrequirement box 153 and so remains validated. However, requirement box155 has an empty compliance evidence 182 field and so remainsunvalidated.

The above validation example uses past actions known to the user todetermine whether a clause or indeed an entire document has beencomplied with. In a further embodiment, the validation applicationallows a user to determine an action plan for validating a clause ordocument. FIG. 9 shows the document map of FIG. 6 with all compliancefields cleared. Clause 4.2 150 in FIG. 9 is an “OR” clause, and thusonly one requirement of Clause 4.2 needs to be validated. In theexample, the user is formulating an action plan for validating theclause according to subclause 4.2(a) 167. Clause 4.2(a) 167 crossreferences clause 4.3 166 which contains four “Multiple” classrequirements, 155, 153, 156, 157. Moving further through the documentmap, it can be determined that in order to validate the Multiplerequirements clause, five individual requirements 155, 153, 156, 161,162 must be validated. If those five individual requirements can bevalidated, the remaining requirements of clause 4.2 will beautomatically validated. These five requirements can be considered theterminating requirements and can be mapped into an action plan 200 suchas shown in FIG. 23. At step 201, the action plan 200 details the textof the requirement 155. At step 202, the action plan 200 details thetext of the requirement 153. At step 203, the action plan 200 detailsthe text of the requirement 156. At step 204, the action plan 200specifies to check whether the text of the condition requirement 161 ismet and, if so, specifies the text of the consequence requirement 162for step 205.

The action plan concisely identifies the steps a user must undertake inorder to prove a clause has been validated. The action plan may furtherbe exported to any known project management software application, forexample Project Manager™ produced by Microsoft Corporation.

A further use of the mapping system is in comparing validation options.Action plans for each option available to validate a clause can bedetermined. For example, clause 4.2 of the document map of FIG. 9 may bevalidated by validating any of sub-clauses 4.2(a)-(e). The action plansfor validating each of clause 4.2(a)-(e) can be generated and comparedto determine the most suitable manner for complying with a clause, e.g.the most cost effective, the least resource or manpower intensive, etc.

Validation of a requirement may occur from the bottom up as describedabove, from top down or in any other suitable manner as appropriate.

The above described embodiments of FIGS. 5 to 7 include examples ofcross referencing. Cross referencing may be indicated explicitly on themap as illustrated for example by the link between clause 4.2(a) and theAND node of clause 4.3, or in an alternative embodiment by hyperlinking.Alternatively, cross referencing may be implicit in that it may not bedisplayed on the document map other than through text. However,validation of an implicit link may still cause the automatic validationof a dependent requirement.

The system of the invention can not only be used in navigating existingdocuments but can be linked with a newly created document to create amap as a document is drafted. Text sections can be accessed individuallyand amended with the effects of changes to an existing section or thecreation of a new section being readily apparent from the document map.

In a further embodiment, the system database stores construction rulesfor constructing a document from a document map. An exemplary rule forthe Multiple Requirements class would be that the text of eachrequirement is separated by a comma with the final two requirementsbeing separated by an “and”. A rule for the Conditional Requirementclass would be that an “if” element is placed before the text of theconditional requirement, followed by a “then” element, in turn followedby the consequential requirement. Thus a user may draft a document byfirst creating a document map and writing the text of the requirementsinto the requirement boxes. The construction rules then map from themapping interface into a document interface e.g. Microsoft Word™ inaccordance with the mapping rules. Because the mapping is conducted asthe initial step, the user can be sure that the grammatical constructionof the document is correct.

For maximum flexibility, a system user may amend the element class liststo add or delete document elements as required. The user may also amendthe format and mapping rules including the way in which links betweenelements on this map are depicted, the colour, font etc of elements andthe symbols used.

The database may store document elements for a plurality of languages inorder that the system can be applied to a wider range of documents. Forexample, FIG. 11 shows the document map of FIG. 5 produced from thedocument 220 of FIG. 21. However, the clauses, requirements and elementclass headings have been translated into Chinese. For example, Clause4.3(a) 155 shown in FIG. 11 corresponds to Clause 4.3(a) 155 of FIG. 5but with the text of the text box 155 displaying the Chinese translationof the text of Clause 4.3(a). The system may store classification andformat rules for each language to account for different grammaticalstructures between languages. Furthermore, the system of the inventioncan be used to verify the translation of a formatted document from onelanguage to another because the structure of the document map for adocument should be the same irrespective of the language in which iswritten. By comparing maps for a document before and after translation,any significant translation errors that cause a change in the documentstructure can be readily identified. While an example of a Chinesetranslation has been provided, it will be apparent to a person skilledin the art that translations may be made into any language since therules of logic that may be applied to structured documents areuniversal.

The system of the invention can be used in drafting and analyzing manyformatted documents including but not limited to contracts, purchaseorders, instructions, standards, specifications, tenders, bids, leases,finance loans, investments, deeds, conveyances, agreements, rules,codes, insurance and other policies, government legislation andstatutory regulations. In particular the system of the invention allowsa user to readily identify the extent of options within a document andthe effect of any changes to the document.

It will be appreciated by the skilled person to which the specificationis addressed that numerous modifications and/or variations can be madeto the above described embodiments without departing from the spirit orscope of the invention and that all such modifications and/or variationsare intended to be embraced herein.

1. A computer implemented method for determining validation with alogically structured document comprising at least one clause, the atleast one clause comprising a logical operator and a plurality ofrequirements logically associated by the logical operator, the methodcomprising: a. displaying on a user interface a validation mappertaining to the document, displaying the validation map comprising: i.displaying a mapping symbol for the at least one clause, the mappingsymbol being dependent on the respective logical operator of the clause,the mapping symbol comprising a requirement element for each requirementof the clause, the requirement element comprising:
 1. a text field; and2. a validation field; and ii. displaying text of the requirements fromthe at least one clause of the document in a respective text field of arequirement element of the mapping symbol pertaining to the at least oneclause; b. receiving user input through the user interface into one ormore validation fields of the document map, the user input indicatingwhether the requirement of the respective requirement element isvalidated; c. calculating, in a processor, validation of the at leastone clause based on validation values in one or more of the validationfields of the requirement elements of the at least one clause andvalidation rules associated with the logical operator of the at leastone clause; and d. displaying a calculated validation on the validationmap.
 2. The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein displayingthe mapping symbol comprises displaying a node symbol for the logicaloperator of a clause and displaying a branch extending from the nodesymbol for each requirement of the clause.
 3. The computer implementedmethod of claim 2 wherein the at least one clause of the documentcomprises a parent clause and at least one child clause as a requirementof the parent clause, wherein displaying the validation map comprisesdisplaying the at least one child clause as a node on a requirementbranch of the parent clause mapping symbol.
 4. The computer implementedmethod of claim 3 wherein calculating validation of the parent clausecomprises automatically calculating validation of the parent clausebased on a calculated validation of the at least one child clause. 5.The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein displaying avalidation map comprises displaying a clause validation field for eachof the at least one clause, wherein displaying a calculated validationcomprises displaying an indication of the calculated validation of theat least one clause in the clause validation field of the respectiveclause.
 6. The computer implemented method of claim 5 comprisingdisplaying a validated clause and displaying a non-validated clauseusing different color schemes.
 7. The computer implemented method ofclaim 1 comprising displaying each validated requirement of a clauseusing one or more color schemes that are different to a color scheme ofa non-validated requirement.
 8. The computer implemented method of claim7 wherein the color schemes of the validated requirements display avalidation path through the validation map.
 9. The computer implementedmethod of claim 1 wherein the validation rules comprise one or morelogic rules based on logical operators.
 10. The computer implementedmethod of claim 1 wherein the at least one clause comprises an ANDlogical operator and wherein calculating validation of the at least oneclause comprises calculating the at least one clause as validated wheneach of the validation fields of the requirement elements of the atleast one clause are indicated as validated.
 11. The computerimplemented method of claim 1 wherein the at least one clause comprisesan OR logical operator and wherein calculating validation of the atleast one clause comprises calculating the at least one clause asvalidated when one or more of the validation fields of the requirementelements of the at least one clause are indicated as validated.
 12. Thecomputer implemented method of claim 1 wherein the at least one clausecomprises a NOT logical operator and wherein calculating validation ofthe at least one clause comprises calculating the at least one clause asvalidated when a validation field of the requirement element of the atleast one clause is indicated as not validated.
 13. The computerimplemented method of claim 1 wherein displaying a mapping symbolcomprises displaying an evidence field for one or more of therequirement elements, the method comprising receiving user input intothe evidence field that indicates evidence of a validation state of avalidation field.
 14. The computer implemented method of claim 1comprising generating a validation action plan from the validation map,the validation action plan comprising a list of requirements that can bevalidated to achieve validation of a clause of the document.
 15. Thecomputer implemented method of claim 14 comprising generating aplurality of alternative validation action plans for validation of aclause of the document.
 16. The computer implemented method of claim 15comprising receiving user input that indicates a cost of validating oneor more requirements of a clause, wherein generating the plurality ofalternative validation action plans comprises determining a cost foreach alternative validation action plan from the indicated costs of eachrequirement of the respective validation action plan.
 17. The computerimplement method of claim 1 comprising automatically calculating avalidation of the at least one clause whenever user input is receivedinto a validation field of a requirement element pertaining to the atleast one clause.
 18. A system for validating a logically structureddocument comprising at least one clause, the at least one clausecomprising a logical operator and a plurality of requirements logicallyassociated by the logical operator, the system comprising: a. at leastone database that stores: i. a validation map pertaining to thelogically structured document, the validation map comprising:
 1. amapping symbol for the at least one clause, the mapping symbol beingdependent on the respective logical operator of the clause, the mappingsymbol comprising a requirement element for each requirement of theclause, the requirement element comprising: a. a text field; and b. avalidation field; and
 2. text of the requirements from the at least oneclause of the document in respective text fields of a requirementelement of the mapping symbol pertaining to the at least one clause; andii. a plurality of validation rules associated with a plurality oflogical operators; and b. a processor specifically programmed to: i.display the validation map on a user interface; ii. receive user inputthrough the user interface into one or more validation fields of thedocument map, the user input indicating whether the requirement of therespective requirement element is validated; iii. calculate validationof the at least one clause based on validation values in one or more ofthe validation fields of the requirement elements of the at least oneclause and one or more of the validation rules associated with thelogical operator of the at least one clause; and iv. display acalculated validation on the validation map.
 19. The system of claim 18wherein the validation map comprises a node symbol for the logicaloperator of a clause and a branch extending from the node symbol foreach requirement of the clause.
 20. The system of claim 18 wherein theat least one clause of the document comprises a parent clause and atleast one child clause as a requirement of the parent clause, whereinthe validation map comprises the at least one child clause as a node ona requirement branch of the parent clause mapping symbol.
 21. The systemof claim 20 wherein the processor is programmed to automaticallycalculate validation of the parent clause based on a calculatedvalidation of the at least one child clause.
 22. The system of claim 18wherein the validation map comprises a clause validation field for eachof the at least one clause, wherein the processor is programmed todisplay an indication of the calculated validation of the at least oneclause in the clause validation field of the respective clause.
 23. Thesystem of claim 22 wherein the processor is programmed to display avalidated clause and a non-validated clause using different colorschemes.
 24. The system of claim 18 wherein the processor is programmedto display each validated requirement of a clause using one or morecolor schemes that are different to a color scheme of a non-validatedrequirement.
 25. The system of claim 24 wherein the color schemes of thevalidated requirements display a validation path through the validationmap.
 26. The system of claim 18 wherein the validation rules compriseone or more logic rules based on logical operators.
 27. The system ofclaim 18 wherein the at least one clause comprises an AND logicaloperator and wherein the one or more validation rules associated withthe AND logical operator comprise that the at least one clause isvalidated when each of the validation fields of the requirement elementsof the at least one clause are indicated as validated.
 28. The system ofclaim 18 wherein the at least one clause comprises an OR logicaloperator and wherein the one or more validation rules associated withthe OR logical operator comprise that the at least one clause isvalidated when one or more of the validation fields of the requirementelements of the at least one clause are indicated as validated.
 29. Thesystem of claim 18 wherein the at least one clause comprises a NOTlogical operator and wherein the one or more validation rules associatedwith the OR logical operator comprise that the at least one clause isvalidated when a validation field of the requirement element of the atleast one clause is indicated as not validated.
 30. The system of claim18 wherein the mapping symbol comprises an evidence field for one ormore of the requirement elements, wherein the processor is programmed toreceive user input into the evidence field that indicates evidence of avalidation state of a validation field.
 31. The system of claim 18wherein the processor is programmed to generate a validation action planfrom the validation map, the validation action plan comprising a list ofrequirements that can be validated to achieve validation of a clause ofthe document.
 32. The system of claim 31 comprising generating aplurality of alternative validation action plans for validation of aclause of the document.
 33. The system of claim 32 wherein the processoris programmed to: a. receive user input that indicates a cost ofvalidating one or more requirements of a clause; and b. determine a costfor each alternative validation action plan from the indicated costs ofeach requirement of the respective validation action plan.
 34. Thesystem of claim 18 wherein the processor is configured to automaticallycalculate a validation of the at least one clause whenever user input isreceived into a validation field of a requirement element pertaining tothe at least one clause.
 35. The system of claim 18 wherein thevalidation map comprises a global validation field for the document andwherein the processor is programmed to: a. calculate a global validationvalue that is dependent on validation values of the clauses of thevalidation map and dependent on the logical association of the clausesof the validation map including each requirement of the clauses and anyclauses that are requirements of a parent clause; and b. indicate thecalculated global validation value in the global validation field of thevalidation map.
 36. The system of claim 18 wherein the validation fieldcomprises a Boolean field with a default value of FALSE.